Yeah, most of the actual naval battles at that point were still being won with traditional battleships because for the most part dive bombers and torpedo bombers still couldn't really finish them off, though they could do things like fuck up their propellers so they'd have to be towed back to port. Carriers became more important strategically because carrier-based bombers had a much longer strike range than even the biggest naval artillery, but most of their role in naval battles was something along the lines of finding and harrying enemy ships rather than outright wiping out fleets.
Arguably carriers are now obsolete for basically the same reasons, since modern missile tech puts basically the same functionality of a carrier-based-bomber in a smaller, disposable package that can be launched from anything big enough to mount a launcher instead of requiring a 5,000 person floating football field (although the latter is still probably meaningful logistically).
see Midway... Guadalcanal was literally one of two battles in the Pacific where battleships actually fought.
Europe doesnt seem so aircraft carrier focused because ze Germans had a pitiful surface navy and the Italians got owned by fucking Swordfish.
i think the fact that most battleships in WW2 faced no or very little contact with enemy ships is highly indicative of.the fact they were obsolete going into the war
I mean I have my disagreements but this is going beyond the scope of the thread and at the end of the day this shit barely matters, so whatever and military analysis as a field is way less objective than people think it is. You're not wrong on the first two points, I just think it's reductive to characterize the entirety of surface capital ships as a 'waste', especially as early as '41.
Yeah, most of the actual naval battles at that point were still being won with traditional battleships because for the most part dive bombers and torpedo bombers still couldn't really finish them off, though they could do things like fuck up their propellers so they'd have to be towed back to port. Carriers became more important strategically because carrier-based bombers had a much longer strike range than even the biggest naval artillery, but most of their role in naval battles was something along the lines of finding and harrying enemy ships rather than outright wiping out fleets.
Arguably carriers are now obsolete for basically the same reasons, since modern missile tech puts basically the same functionality of a carrier-based-bomber in a smaller, disposable package that can be launched from anything big enough to mount a launcher instead of requiring a 5,000 person floating football field (although the latter is still probably meaningful logistically).
see: Matapan, Guadalcanal campaigns, Narvik, North Cape etc...
see Midway... Guadalcanal was literally one of two battles in the Pacific where battleships actually fought.
Europe doesnt seem so aircraft carrier focused because ze Germans had a pitiful surface navy and the Italians got owned by fucking Swordfish.
i think the fact that most battleships in WW2 faced no or very little contact with enemy ships is highly indicative of.the fact they were obsolete going into the war
I mean I have my disagreements but this is going beyond the scope of the thread and at the end of the day this shit barely matters, so whatever and military analysis as a field is way less objective than people think it is. You're not wrong on the first two points, I just think it's reductive to characterize the entirety of surface capital ships as a 'waste', especially as early as '41.
true and i hope i didnt come off combative lol. this is just banter it dont matter. :deng-cowboy: